Issue with Hindsight vs Mind Blanc

[Larloch]

Hi everyone.

In the campain we play right now I have a secret agenda (as every char in the party does as well). I am a lvl 15 wizard and keep Mind Blanc on my character active at all times.

The problem is I had a meeting in secret, and my party used Hindsight (from SC) one day later in the same place that my meeting took place. I insist that the Mind Blanc spell prevents hindsight from showing the other party members that I was there a day ago, as well as cloud anything related to the discussion I made. My DM seems to disagree with that.

Mind Blanc says in the description in 3.5 PHB "This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects. Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to affect the subject’s mind or to gain information about it." Hindsight is trying to do exactly that, gather information. My DM claims that Hindsight shows events in the past as they happened and thus Mind Blanc cannot protect me from this. But even then, didnt my characted have Mind Blanc back then? Shouldnt this protect him from this?

Any opinions on that?

Thanks in advance for your help guys.

[Nettlekid]

First of all, *Hindsight and *Mind Blank.

Secondly, I would absolutely agree with you. Now, I could see some discrepancy arising if you didn't have Mind Blank on you then but do now, or do not now but did then, and there might be confusion on that front (does it work back in time if it "prevents divinations from finding information about you" and you have it on, etc) but with this, then definitely. Tell your DM that Mind Blank protects against spells like Scrying too, which also "show things exactly as they are," like your DM says Hindsight does. You just don't appear in the Scrying viewer. That should apply for Hindsight too.

[Morcleon]

You had mindblank on during the meeting right? This means that you would not be detected by hindsight, this one being a divination spell. (if it wasn't on during the meeting, you are detected)

However, this does not prevent anyone else's words or actions from being detected. Thus, your party could very well infer that there was someone who has divination blockers that was at the meeting, and then figure out that it was you from context clues.

[afroakuma]

Hindsight is the more powerful of the two, is not a scrying effect, and doesn't specifically look for minds or probe them. I'd rule that you're spotted; even though effects couldn't deterministically say that you, the person you are, the mind and the soul and whatnot were there, the spell should be able to replay sound and vision that would show someone who looks like you and sounds like you to have been there (assuming you weren't disguised). The wording of mind blank is overly broad for what the intent seems to have been, and I'd side with the guy who just spent 1000 gp.

That said, in making such a ruling, I'd offer you the retroactive opportunity to take other measures to conceal your identity (disguises, other obfuscating spells) since you'd already demonstrated your desire to be furtive.

[Morcleon]

Hindsight is the more powerful of the two, is not a scrying effect, and doesn't specifically look for minds or probe them. I'd rule that you're spotted; even though effects couldn't deterministically say that you, the person you are, the mind and the soul and whatnot were there, the spell should be able to replay sound and vision that would show someone who looks like you and sounds like you to have been there (assuming you weren't disguised). The wording of mind blank is overly broad for what the intent seems to have been, and I'd side with the guy who just spent 1000 gp.

That said, in making such a ruling, I'd offer you the retroactive opportunity to take other measures to conceal your identity (disguises, other obfuscating spells) since you'd already demonstrated your desire to be furtive.

Hindsight may be higher level, but mindblank specifically blocks even wish and miracle. Mindblank also states "as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects". Hindsight is a divination spell that gathers information (about the past). Thus, mindblank works to block hindsight.

However, as I said earlier, no one else in the room is blocked, and there's a very good chance that someone said the mindblank'ed person's name.

[enderlord99]

Apparently, Blanc-Blank is the new Rouge-Rogue.:smallamused:

[Flickerdart]

Hindsight is the more powerful of the two, is not a scrying effect, and doesn't specifically look for minds or probe them.
Those are not, however, things that rule out being blocked by Mind Blank.

[Randomguy]

You should probably conduct secret meetings inside a rope trick to avoid Hindsight from now on.

[afroakuma]

Hindsight may be higher level, but mindblank specifically blocks even wish and miracle.


Mind blank even foils limited wish, miracle, and wish spells when they are used in such a way as to affect the subject’s mind or to gain information about it.

There's a bit of ambiguity at the end there as to whether "it" refers to the subject's mind, or to the subject. I'd rule the former and rule that hindsight isn't falling within that limitation.


Those are not, however, things that rule out being blocked by Mind Blank.

Not by RAW. I'm not talking RAW, I'm talking about what ruling I would make based on my reading of RAI. I don't view mind blank as absolute protection against divination effects; only against those that in some way rely on finding your mind (read thoughts, know alignment, discern location, scrying) whereas if, say, someone used contact other plane to ask questions about you, being under a mind blank wouldn't temporarily delete your cosmic Wikipedia entry, so to speak.

Again, I'm not speaking to RAW, and arguments from RAW don't really matter to me. I specifically gave and am giving now my ruling as a DM on this interaction.

[Flickerdart]

Not by RAW. I'm not talking RAW, I'm talking about what ruling I would make based on my reading of RAI. I don't view mind blank as absolute protection against divination effects
That's not RAI. It's pretty clear that Mind Blank was intended to block all divinations, because that's what it says in plain terms.

[Crake]

That's not RAI. It's pretty clear that Mind Blank was intended to block all divinations, because that's what it says in plain terms.

Gotta agree with this. I think its quite clear that mindblank would beat hindsight. The only argument I could see about this would be having mind blank on at the time of the meeting vs having it on at the time of hindsight casting.

[Scow2]

Mind Blank's wording is very clear: "In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected."

This is the Hindsight effect.

[afroakuma]

Mind Blank's wording is very clear: "In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected."

This is the Hindsight effect.

No it isn't because hindsight is not scrying. Spells that are scrying identify as such.


That's not RAI. It's pretty clear that Mind Blank was intended to block all divinations, because that's what it says in plain terms.


The subject is protected from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts.

This shows intent. The spell is supposed to blank your mind. True seeing is still going to spot you hiding behind an illusory object or under disguise self. Contact other plane is still going to provide answers about you. You can still use augury successfully; it doesn't tell you that you don't exist. You can also use detect scrying.

Again, that's my ruling. I know you don't agree with it, but that's what I predicate it on and I'm not budging. You think it's a bad ruling, well, don't use mind blank in my game. :smalltongue:

[Flickerdart]

This shows intent. The spell is supposed to blank your mind.


This spell protects against all mind-affecting spells and effects as well as information gathering by divination spells or effects.
And this doesn't show intent? There is nothing contradictory between the two sentences: Mind Blank is a spell that protects you from spells that read or influence your mind as well as information gathering by divinations and mind affecting stuff. Unless you can find a reason for why the first sentence should override the second, you have no ground to stand on and your ruling isn't RAI but a houserule.

[afroakuma]

And this doesn't show intent?

No, I don't believe it does. I believe that part to be poorly worded, as the spell as a whole is, really. That's what I mean by "my reading." As I read it, I feel the intent is laid out in the first sentence, with the second being the rules they used to back it - poorly. I say poorly because it doesn't appear to think out what it suggests that it covers. Looking at the line regarding wish and similar effects gives me the corroboration for my viewpoint that I feel to be sufficient.

If you want to call that a houserule, be my guest. I don't care what you use to describe it; I personally feel that it's supported by how I have read the intent of the rule.

[Flickerdart]

By the same logic, you could say that the first part of the spell is poorly worded. Either way, basing an argument on "belief" is no solid proof.

[afroakuma]

By the same logic, you could say that the first part of the spell is poorly worded. Either way, basing an argument on "belief" is no solid proof.

What argument? I read over the spell, I made a determination. I'm not saying people should interpret either RAW or RAI this way; I'm saying I, personally, have done so, and that I think it is reasonable to. You obviously don't, and that's fine.

[asarel]

As a DM of an Epic campaign I face some issue sith this spell. So I need to define clearly thé spell behavior.
As a first rule, your DM are right just because it's the DM and he has to maintain some balance in his world.

In my campaign I 've tried to follow what has been written in the rules book. Then I consider Mind blank is a wall without back door. It's like iron body. Many benefits but many issues. It mean nothing can retrieve information on the user. Legend lore do not work for example. As a side effect of mind blank immunities, it is impossible to use the rary telepathic bond or to benefit from any morale bonus.

In your problem, perhaps you can discuss with your DM. Your wizard should have the exact knowledge of this spell. So you can clarified what can help you to have private discussion. Using private sanctum in a magnific mansion should help since the place will not exist any more after your meeting.

[Morcleon]

As a first rule, your DM are right just because it's the DM and he has to maintain some balance in his world.

This... this is not correct. The DM may have the power to create rulings, but this does not mean that he is correct. Balance can be maintained through controlled, calm discussion. :smallwink:


In my campaign I 've tried to follow what has been written in the rules book. Then I consider Mind blank is a wall without back door. It's like iron body. Many benefits but many issues. It mean nothing can retrieve information on the user. Legend lore do not work for example. As a side effect of mind blank immunities, it is impossible to use the rary telepathic bond or to benefit from any morale bonus.

Just out of curiosity, how is being undetectable by legend lore a drawback? :smalltongue: Also, it's possible to get morale boni from non mind-affecting sources (conviction, for example).

[Siosilvar]

Relevant text:
Mind Blank The subject is protected from all devices and spells that detect, influence, or read emotions or thoughts. This spell protects against all ... information gathering by divination spells or effects.

Hindsight You sense the events of the past, stretching back one day per caster level. You gain detailed knowledge of the people, conversations, and events that transpired.

I'd call that "information gathering". So, Mind Blank blocks it. It's overbroad, but RAW it's a perfect defense against this sort of thing. If the DM wants to house-rule it, that's their prerogative, but I would suggest getting a full rewrite of the spell instead of case-by-case decisions (both because of the potential for inconsistency and because Mind Blank is in need of a rewrite anyway).


What argument? I read over the spell, I made a determination. I'm not saying people should interpret either RAW or RAI this way; I'm saying I, personally, have done so, and that I think it is reasonable to. You obviously don't, and that's fine.

"In logic and philosophy, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident." - Wikipedia

[afroakuma]

"In logic and philosophy, an argument is an attempt to persuade someone of something, by giving reasons for accepting a particular conclusion as evident." - Wikipedia

I'm not trying to persuade anyone. :smalltongue: I'm giving my ruling; I don't suggest it should be used by anyone else, and I'm not even suggesting that Flickerdart should accept it.

And yes, mind blank is very much in need of a rewrite, but so is much of 3.5 and it seems that Legend already exists (http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/). :smallbiggrin:

[Scow2]

So, what you've done is houseruled the spell to narrow down its otherwise overly-broad but still clearly-defined scope.

[ZeroNumerous]

Mind Blank's wording is very clear: "In the case of scrying that scans an area the creature is in, such as arcane eye, the spell works but the creature simply isn’t detected."

This is the Hindsight effect.

Well, while other people argue about Mind Blank's RAI or their own personal interpretations, I'm gonna agree with Scow2.

Mind Blank says you simply are not detected when something like Hindsight is used. So you simply do not show up, and no one can hear anything you said at the time.

That doesn't mean someone can't piece together the fact that you were there via context clues and conversation, or someone else didn't say your name during the meeting.

This is why you should always use different codenames during meetings, and Alter Self into some sort of creature vastly different than your natural race. Lizardmen are a good choice because they are frequently described/voiced with lisps, and you can avoid sounding like yourself when you talk as one.

[Phelix-Mu]

My lizard wizard has a lisp? Sacre bleu!

It seems that the OP has largely been answered. Regardless of precisely how much mind blank blocks, all of the meeting is visible (with the possible exception of the mind blanked character). A party smart enough to cast hindsight is probably smart enough to figure out who it is behind the curtain.

I will echo the possible fix by the DM of allowing the wiz to retroactively take additional measures. The player is the one that misunderstood the scope of mind blank (by the OP DM's ruling), and it is more likely that the wizard was aware of this, and would have employed more spells in disguising his meeting, possibly some additional anti-divination or some classic misdirect (codewords, innuendo, mundane disguise for the others at the meeting). The best ways to discuss sensitive topics are remote methods that are inaudible, visual codes, encrypted letters, sending and related spells, telepathy. Hardly foolproof, but at least immune to eavesdropping.

[Tanuki Tales]

And yes, mind blank is very much in need of a rewrite, but so is much of 3.5 and it seems that Legend already exists (http://www.ruleofcool.com/get-the-game/). :smallbiggrin:

I swear that more times than not, I can't go into a thread on this subforum without seeing some plugging of Legend. :smallsigh:

As for this thread's topic:

The RAW is clearly on the OP's side and while the DM has a prerogative to change the rules and world as he/she sees fit, it's bad form and taste to do so all of the sudden, with no warning and to the detriment of the player.

[demigodus]

While this is a reasonable house rule, it IS a house rule.

Consequently, unless the wizard PC doesn't know how his own spells work, the DM should have told the player this house rule when the player first took the spell. Or at latest, when he first cast it on himself.

[afroakuma]

I swear that more times than not, I can't go into a thread on this subforum without seeing some plugging of Legend. :smallsigh:

Clearly that's because it's worth plugging. :smallamused:


Consequently, unless the wizard PC doesn't know how his own spells work, the DM should have told the player this house rule when the player first took the spell. Or at latest, when he first cast it on himself.

There's a gray area where a DM just can't know all of the effects that might be called on to interact with the mind blank. Some DMs will have rewritten the spell, some DMs have enough system mastery to know them all, but I'd never heard of hindsight until seeing this thread and I use the Spell Compendium routinely. I think it's incumbent on the DM in such an instance to make a ruling that fairly accounts for the gap between character knowledge and what is available to the player at the time, rather than something along the lines of "well, going forward, we'll know."

[Tanuki Tales]

Clearly that's because it's worth plugging. :smallamused:

To the people who made it or swear by it, yeah.

[Andion Isurand]

I wish one could start these things out with a poll.

[enderlord99]

There's a bit of ambiguity at the end there as to whether "it" refers to the subject's mind, or to the subject.

Clearly Mind Blank only prevents Wish or Miracle when they are trying to determine information about Mind Blank. That's what seems to be happening, at least.

[Morcleon]

Clearly Mind Blank only prevents Wish or Miracle when they are trying to determine information about Mind Blank. That's what seems to be happening, at least.

But wait! You forgot to include limited wish! :smalleek:

It specifies those three because they have very nebulous restrictions on what can be done.